Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

Purge
Shortcut WP:AFD/T

30 November 2024

Read how to nominate an article for deletion.

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< November 29	December 01 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

MyPhone myA1 Plus

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Of the given sources, two are from the brand's website and one is a YouTube video. The only other source, [1], appears to be a specs sheet rather than the kind of in-depth covering we'd expect from a reliable source. From a WP:BEFORE, I could only find [2], from a website which is explicitly a self-published blog. All in all, doesn't look like the product meets WP:GNG. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:25, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Technology, and Philippines. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:25, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DownloadStudio

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

"awarded by PC Magazine as the best download manager in its Utility Guide 2004". Is this enough for WP:NSOFT? I have my doubts. No other indications of notability in the article or in my BEFORE _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:08, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:08, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Amador

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Biography sourced only by IMDb. Cabayi (talk) 11:38, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Journalism, and California. Cabayi (talk) 11:38, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anita Gonzalez

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject fails the notability guidelines for WP:ANYBIO and WP:NPROF. The sources cannot establish that the subject passes the General notability guidelines. The first source is a Linkedin page, the second source is an interview and the last source is a personal website. Ibjaja055 (talk) 10:50, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Women, and United States of America. Ibjaja055 (talk) 10:50, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Douglas (darts player)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 09:48, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:45, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete some routine coverage but not enough to meet WP:SPORTSCRIT. LibStar (talk) 23:55, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:37, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Summers (darts player)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 09:47, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:45, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. LibStar (talk) 22:59, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:37, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wu Sing-yung

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seemingly written by someone close to the subject, fails WP:PROF. Remsense ‥ 论 08:41, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Remsense ‥ 论 08:41, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Medicine, and China. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:47, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm finding IS ∩ RS ∩ SIGCOV at this 2016 article, this 2016 article, and this 2023 article; IS RS discussion of his work without SIGCOV at this 2009 article and this 2019 article; and an RS SIGCOV 2012 interview which I'd consider to be IS as well even though interviews are sometimes borderline.
Fails NPROF for sure, but looks like he meets NAUTHOR (or maybe it's ANYBIO or GNG; notability guidelines confuse me). The article is a bit curriculis vitae (which is probably the wrong declension, but "CV" tends to mean "copyvio" here so expanding); this can be fixed. Not super convinced by COI hypothesis: this article is indeed the first major contribution by Singering88, but a. creating it as their userpage is a fair and common rookie mistake; and b. the subject was born 1939, lived in and was educated in Taiwan, then emigrated to the US— at no point in this chain would it be intuitive that a COI editor would choose to render the subject's native name in 簡體字 (which it has been since the initial recension).
I could see a case here for COATRACK, since a fair portion of the prose actually deals with the subject's research into the Retreat of the government of the Republic of China to Taiwan. But I am seeing notability here, so landing at improve and keep. Folly Mox (talk) 16:36, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hoc simulat curriculum vitae, perhaps? —David Eppstein (talk) 19:09, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No GS profile but there seems to be substantial citations, top 410, 305, 265, 226, 169 and further ~five >100 citns, which makes a case for meeting PROF by citations for the thyroid hormone work. Seven mainstream published books are also likely to have generated enough reviews to meet AUTHOR. The article is probably readily salvageable simply by deleting all the unrelated material. If there was COI originally, the article was submitted to AfC and accepted by DGG, so that's not a reason for deletion. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:17, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:31, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tararam

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Mostly unreferenced topic, with unclear notability. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 04:54, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Hebrew Wikipedia article has 27 references. Left guide (talk) 05:46, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Israel. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:24, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is not "mostly unreferenced," , furthermore, it should be noted that notability is not related to the current state of the article. As Left Guide noted, the Hebrew article has plenty of sources. The topic meets the threshold of notability. Whizkin (talk) 06:47, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:05, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:29, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Have you actually seen the Hebrew sources? "SAP Israel concluded a year"??? "SanDisk celebrates Bar Mitzvah"??? Every time they've played at a corporate shindig? Every corporate campaign that uses them? The article about "a unique internet campaign for Cellcom" doesn't even MENTION Tararam? No SIGCOV, no hit record, no chart placement, no major tour, no major media recognition. There's literally nothing here beyond a local ensemble often hired by tech corporates to play at their junkets. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:23, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:31, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Parker Molloy

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject fails WP:BIO notability, most of the sources aren't independent of the subject. TheLoyalOrder (talk) 02:06, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Journalism. TheLoyalOrder (talk) 02:06, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:41, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV per the sources found in the first AFD, which can be viewed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parker Marie Molloy. Best.4meter4 (talk) 02:13, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1st source listed is WP:HUFFPOCON, 2nd and 3rd don't mention her just a controversy she was involved with, 4th is a blog post that mentions her on the same controversy, 5th is a dead link, 6th is a petition, 7th, 8th, 11th are from same site about the same thing but could potentially be an ok source, 9th is a blog, 10th is the same thing as 8th. 12th is dead.

So really there's one potentially good soucre there, doesn't exactly establish notability. TheLoyalOrder (talk) 02:32, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TheLoyalOrder I'm counting 28 sources in that AFD, and its difficult to know what sources you are talking about specifically because they are not numbered. I suggest doing a WP:SIRS table source analysis here for clarity. You might also want to include the sources currently cited in the article as well. Best.4meter4 (talk) 03:40, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

sure, i'll do that soon. thanks TheLoyalOrder (talk) 05:27, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


From	Source	Significant?	Independent?	Reliable?	Secondary?	Pass/Fail	Notes
Currently used in article	https://windycitytimes.com/2014/06/25/windy-city-times-30-under-30-to-be-honored-june-26/	no	presumably	presumably	no	X	Mentioned in a list of a bunch of people by this local newspaper
	https://www.advocate.com/politics/transgender/2014/03/31/2014-trans-100-includes-cece-mcdonald-fallon-fox#toggle-gdpr	no	no	presumably	no	X	Mentioned once, seemingly because she writes for them
	https://web.archive.org/web/20190203133449/https://www.mediamatters.org/authors/parker-molloy/382	no	no	presumably	no	X	an article she wrote, not about her
	https://newrepublic.com/authors/parker-molloy	no	no		no	X	its just a link to their author page
	https://www.salon.com/writer/parker_marie_molloy/	no	no		no	X	ditto
	https://thought.is/what-its-like-to-come-out-as-transgender-at-work/	yes	no	?	no	X	article about herself
	https://web.archive.org/web/20141104114234/http://parkthatcar.net/2012/07/16/oneoftherottenones/	no	no	?	no	X	blog post by her
	Parker Marie Molloy (February 25, 2014). My Transgender Coming Out Story. Thought Catalog. ISBN 9781629210605.	?	no	?	no	X	dead link to ebook she wrote
	https://web.archive.org/web/20150312125430/http://chicagoist.com/2014/03/02/interview_parker_marie_malloy_on_ca.php	yes	no	presumably	no	X	interview of her
	https://www.salon.com/2014/02/05/piers_morgan_grills_trans_activist.../	no	yes	debatable	yes	X	just quotes a tweet of hers
	https://web.archive.org/web/20201206162642/http://archive.azcentral.com/community/gilbert/articles/20140124gilbert-golf-inventor-suicide-website-essay-anne-vanderbilt.html	no	yes	?	no	X	she's not mentioned
	https://grantland.com/features/a-mysterious-physicist-golf-club-dr-v/	no	yes	?	no	X	ditto
	https://web.archive.org/web/20170914124936/https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/3-signs-we-have-a-long-way-to-go-on-trans-rights-20150113	no	no	no	no	X	an article she wrote, not about her
	https://www.huffpost.com/voices/topic/transgender	no		debatable		X	its just the topic page for all trans articles
	https://www.salon.com/2013/08/23/the_happy_story_of_my_transgender_coming_out/	yes	no	debatable	no	X	article about herself
	https://apnews.com/article/trump-media-election-rallies-facts-kamala-harris-e906e990b5dcfe44b5e672336fe82b32	no	yes	yes	yes	X	leads with briefly mentioning her perspective on sanewashing of trump and then talks about other people
	https://archive.ph/20141108192631/http://nlgja.org/2014/transgender-journalists-and	no	no	?	no	X	just lists her a particpating in a talk
	https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/style-blog/wp/2013/08/22/trans-activists-scrutinize-pvt-manning-coverage/	no	yes	yes	yes	X	just quotes a tweet of hers
	https://web.archive.org/web/20141108220813/http://theweek.com/article/index/250110	no	no	?	no	X	quotes her amongst other trans people
	https://www.bostonglobe.com/lifestyle/2014/12/31/transgender-teen-leelah-alcorn-death-needs-mean-something/4hw6uPd8NtjIbn8kAdyAbM/story.html	no	no	presumably	no	X	her commenting on something, not about her
	https://www.autostraddle.com/let-it-go-for-the-last-time-trans-women-were-not-born-boys-255055/	no	yes	?	yes	X	briefly quoting an op-ed she co wrote, amongst other trans people
	http://www.thetrans100.com/about/	no	presumably		no	X	just a link to the trans 100 org, she's not mentioned
	https://web.archive.org/web/20150213020921/http://www.nwpc.org/2014emmanominees	no	presumably	?	no	X	list of people who received an honor from an org
	https://web.archive.org/web/20141108212634/http://www.lapressclub.org/Resources/Documents/Finalists_NAEJ_2014.pdf	no	presumably	?	no	X	ditto
	https://www.advocate.com/politics/transgender/2014/04/17/t-word-new-n-word	no	no	presumably	no	X	an article she wrote, not about her
	https://www.advocate.com/politics/transgender/2014/03/18/rupaul-stokes-anger-use-transphobic-slur	no	no	presumably	no	X	ditto
	https://www.huffingtonpost.com/parker-marie-molloy/gay-dudes-can-you-just-not_b_4330353.html	no	no	no	no	X	ditto
	https://web.archive.org/web/20141108213125/http://www.pqmonthly.com/parker-marie-molloy-elaborates-gay-dudes-can-just/17814	yes	no	?	no	X	interview of her
	https://www.huffpost.com/entry/parker-marie-molloy_b_5077322	not really	yes	no	yes	X	not really about her, author mostly talks about their own experience in response to parker
	https://www.advocate.com/commentary/2014/04/17/op-ed-burning-books-one-word-time	no	yes	?	no	X	doesn't mention parker
	https://www.thestranger.com/seattle/about-the-word-tranny/Content?oid=19946137	no	yes	?	no	X	ditto
	https://boingboing.net/2014/04/04/rupaul.html	maybe	yes	probably not	yes	X	perennial soucres describes boingboing.net as a group blog
	https://web.archive.org/web/20160311044304/http://www.huffingtonpost.com/our-lady-j/rupauls-drag-race_b_5148719.html	no	yes	debatable	yes	X	doesn't mention parker
	http://www.wtfpod.com/podcast/episodes/episode_498_-_rupaul_charles	?	yes	no	?	X	ru paul podcast episode, presumably paul talks about his opinion
	https://web.archive.org/web/20160819021941/http://roygbiv.jezebel.com/huffpostgays-offensive-video-of-drag-queen-shooting-tra-1566525131	no	yes	no	yes	X	short blog post it looks like
	https://www.advocate.com/politics/transgender/2014/04/14/rupauls-drag-race-logo-tv-apologize-transphobic-slur	no	no	presumably	yes	X	an article she wrote, not about her
	https://web.archive.org/web/20141029221559/http://www.glaad.org/blog/update-female-or-she-male-sketch-and-rupauls-drag-race	no	yes	presumably	yes	X	doesn't mention her
	http://freethoughtblogs.com/zinniajones/2014/04/open-letter-100-trans-women-stand-against-calpernia-addams-and-andrea-james/	not really	?	no	no	X	a petition defending her
	https://www.huffpost.com/entry/calpernia-addams-andrea-james_b_5146415	not really	?	no	no	X	ditto
	https://www.queerty.com/trans-violence-watchdogs-issue-advisory-warning-against-advocate-writer-and-trans-activist-parker-molloy-20140903	not really	yes	?	yes	X	mentions a previous article about parker and then that were added to a list, that's all
	https://www.queerty.com/park-that-attitude-the-danger-of-trans-activist-parker-molloy-20140827	probably	yes	?	yes	?	unclear on the reliability of Queerty. also not sure if its coverage of her is signifcant
from prev AFD	https://www.advocate.com/politics/transgender/2014/05/06/alaska-thunderfuck-apologizes-controversial-video	not really	no	?	no	X	reads like an ad for a podcast she was on
	https://www.thestranger.com/blogs/2014/10/30/20923525/sl-letter-of-the-day-drag-trans-trans-drag	not really	no	?	no	X	article isn't about her, author just asked her opinion on something
	links to a bunch of websites that she writes articles for		no		no	X	these aren't sources
	https://web.archive.org/web/20210623155424/https://www.glaad.org/blog/author-transphobia-perfectly-natural-asked-take-leave-ad-agency	not really	yes	yes	yes	?	short article about Gavin McInnes that quotes a tweet of her's
	https://windycitytimes.com/2014/05/14/chicagoan-writes-nationally-from-the-t-perspective/	yes	?	?	no?	X	its mostly an interview, which would be primary source

TheLoyalOrder (talk) 07:06, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

probably wrong on some of these judgements but not wrong to the point it changes the determinations, i think. 0 definitely good sources. Also most of these, regardless of quality, talk about like 1 controversy from a decade ago TheLoyalOrder (talk) 07:09, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm confused and impressed that someone would make a gigantic chart to evaluate these sources. Yes, many of them are bad or irrelevant, but so what? There are a lot of subjective judgements of individual sources that I do not share and I believe that Carrite's sources provided in the previous AFD establish notability. Gamaliel (talk) 15:18, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Carrite lists three sources: source 1 isn't independent and is primary (it's mostly an interview of her, the information is coming from the subject), source 2 is from a deprecated source WP:HUFFPOCON (basically a blog post, no editorial oversight), source 3 i'd argue its not really significant coverage of parker, more of one incident involving Parker. Unclear if this site has an editorial (no about us section) or if this is just basically a blog post.

Even included that, that's one iffy source.

Also note these three sources are from 2014, not really sustained coverage. TheLoyalOrder (talk) 21:21, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Weak Keep. We need to judge this by the best sources. The inclusion of additional primary sources is neither hear nor there when it comes to deletion. (Any truly superfluous ones can be removed from the article.) I think we can safely disregard the big table of sources above as it lists several secondary sources as not being so. For example, interviews are not primary sources (unless the subject is self-publishing the interview, I guess). I'm sure that this is a genuine misunderstanding but it reveals the entire AfD to be misconceived. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:04, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update: If it is true that Malloy genuinely requests deletion then I do not oppose deletion on that basis. She is clearly notable enough for us to have an article but not so significantly notable that we must have an article about her, i.e. where not having an article would create a hole in the encyclopaedia. This is a middle position where discretion might be exercised legitimately. I am neutral on that, provided that there really is an unambiguous request for deletion. I guess that makes my !vote into a weak keep overall so I've updated it accordingly. If deleted then the article title should probably redirect to The Advocate. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:46, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
what are the best sources? interviews being primary sources is based on WP:Interviews, since any information they give about themselves is primary and that's what the article is about TheLoyalOrder (talk) 20:38, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Weak Keep. Sufficient coverage in reliable sources (I just added one). Funcrunch (talk) 18:02, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Updating my !vote as I just saw on the article talk page that the subject wants this page removed. Funcrunch (talk)

Delete: I do not believe Carritte's sources establish notability. The HuffPost source is unusable per WP:HUFFPOCON. I don't think the Windy City source is sufficiently independent, but even if it was that only leaves us with two usable sources between it and Queerty. The sources currently in the article seem to be a mixture of passing mentions or Molloy herself. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 19:17, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've just searched for her name on google scholar and seen that she's frequently mentioned as an example of someone who has said or written something. She must be widely known. --Northernhenge (talk) 23:46, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, she's borderline notable, however it's not a clear case as much of this is what she said/wrote, not independent coverage. Together with subject requesting deletion, I think we err on the side of their request as a BLP. Star Mississippi 02:56, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:23, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Industry Leaders

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is clearly an advertorial-style TV show that lacks notability and coverage in reliable sources under WP:NTV and WP:GNG. In terms of existing sources, the Herald Sun reference is actually to a suburban local paper owned by the same company, not to the Melbourne Herald Sun itself. Boneymau (talk) 03:56, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Australia. Boneymau (talk) 03:56, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. The show seems clearly notable as an established broadcast TV program. The fact that the actual content of the show might be fluffy business cheerleading seems to be influencing the nomination, and it shouldn’t, that has nothing to do with the notability of the show.

The fact that this article is fluffy cheerleading however, is relevant, and this article isn’t ready to be public in its current form, hence the nomination. It will need an eventual source analysis but that’s premature until the article is NPOV.

When that happens, the analysis of sources should be mindful that this is media, and coverage of media within other media tends to follow different conventions. WilsonP NYC (talk) 16:19, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there more support for draftification?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:00, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sourcing here is very poor indeed. Tangential sources are used to prop up statements about companies mentioned in the article, bulking up the overall source count but adding nothing to the very scanty notability of this show. So we have a lot of content like "It has been credited with helping businesses gain exposure and recognition, as seen with companies like Core9" sourced to the Core9 blog. And this is by no means atypical. Sources 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 are TV listings (and by no means unique in this - it's just wearying picking through the 79 sources in this article - almost all of which are tangential, non-RS, listings or sourced to the show itself. There's literally nothing there, the whole article's SYNTH, OR and in short a man of straw. And once again, we have descended into poetry... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:47, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:21, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Symphony of Heaven

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The more you look at sources, the more notability seems to be lacking. Many are based on band members' own words via interviews. Some other sources include articles written by band members themselves. Once you see past the notability mask smoke screen, the notability of this band appears quite thin and below meeting GNG. Also, the article was created by an undisclosed paid editing user. That editor appears to have a COI with this article. Graywalls (talk) 06:05, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Christianity, and Indiana. Graywalls (talk) 06:05, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like a situation I've occasionally come across where an album might be more notable than a band. Season of Death has some significant coverage from HM, The Metal Resource, and Teeth of the Divine. That last one is currently being discussed at the reliable sources notice board. I noticed the review is written by the site owner, which would mean that it can't be used for any biographical statements. The site owner is a reputable music journalist, so that does confer notability to the album. however, apart from the album reviews, most of the other stuff I'm seeing is either press release copy, interviews from unreliable or self-published sources (which are fine for verifiable statements about the band but not for establishing notability), or COI sources (The Metal Onslaught and Indie Vision Music). ~~I am leaning toward merge with Season of Death.~~--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 12:28, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

per discussion with Graywalls below, I agree that this does not need to merge with one of the albums. So in that case, delete--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 01:40, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:ABOUTSELF. "unduly self serving" is often black and white, but there's grey area in some cases.

For example, "first luxury boutique hotel in town" citing the hotel's page or "a 100,000 lumen flash light released in 2024" citing the manufacturer's website of a light sold for $10 on Amazon. The former is fluffing, the latter is likely objectively inaccurate. However, citing the hotel's page "is a hotel in town xxx" or the flashlight's manufacturer's as "a flashlight release in 2024" would pass for factual accuracy. In 99.99% of cases, that flashlight's page has no place being cited or mentioned AT ALL on Wikipedia though. I think WP:RS is a concept unique to Wikipedia. Much of the sources in Symphony of Heaven don't substantiate inclusion worthiness even if factually accurate. Graywalls (talk) 21:14, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Basic biographical facts and album releases are fine to cite to the subject and those affiliated with the subject. But, if attributable to the subject, they don't give the subject notability. Verifiability isn't the same as notability. The flashlight hypothetical is a hypothetical and isn't relevant here.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done)

That merge suggestion appears unsound though. I was only suggesting that be merged INTO this, because Season of Death is one of the many notability failing articles of Symphony of Heaven. So, that being merged into this would be reasonable if this isn't notable, but if they're both non-notable, then deletion is sometimes the sound option. Graywalls (talk) 23:20, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that I found three independent reliable sources for that album, it's notable--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 12:25, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If we had an article on Battery Company Inc, and separate articles on AA, C and D batteries of theirs, merging individual product into the company would make sense if the company is notable, but if we only had sources to make the AA stick, I don't believe that's a right re-direct target. That's the situation we have here. Graywalls (talk) 21:11, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your analogy. The album is notable. The band is not (or barely is).--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 23:10, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't make much of a sense to merge the band into an album for the sake of saving cruft from a non-notable band. Their other non-notable albums would then re-direct, rather than merge into one of the albums. Though, my order of preerence would be Del->redir->m erge. There are three other albums, so this would be a situation where there's really no appropriate singular re-direct target. Like I said, it's like re-directing a non-notable battery company into their marginally notable "non-notable comany's AA battery" while there's an article each in existence for each of the company's battery size. As you can see, this is an illogical target. Graywalls (talk) 01:16, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, I follow now. Yes, I suppose I agree.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 01:40, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:21, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alexei Pavlov (swimmer)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:SPORTCRIT as there is not significant coverage in reliable sources. Adabow (talk) 09:00, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Russia. Adabow (talk) 09:00, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Makon

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NMUSIC as well as WP:GNG TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 08:54, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Cameroon. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 08:54, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rokenrol

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Did a quick google search. Unable to find any link which mentions this album. Can't establish notability. Wikibear47 (talk) 07:49, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:08, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lancaster Steiner School

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I have carried out WP:BEFORE for this primary school and added some references. There is very little secondary coverage, however, and all that I have found is local. Given the small size of the school, currently 13 pupils, I think it is unlikely that other coverage exists which would demonstrate its notability. I don't think it meets WP:GNG, WP:NCORP or WP:NSCHOOL. There was a discussion on the article's Talk page in 2012 about notability, which resulted in sources being added at that point. Tacyarg (talk) 07:28, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, United Kingdom, and England. Tacyarg (talk) 07:28, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect It seems a pity after the work you put in, but yes, this is an independent school and so it needs to meet WP:NORG. It doesn't. Would a redirect to Waldorf education make sense? It wouldn't be listed there, which is a problem, but that might still be a the kind of information someone would be seeking about it. But perhaps the better redirect is Lancaster, Lancashire, where the school is listed. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:57, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes - or what about a redirect to List of schools in Lancashire#Independent schools? Tacyarg (talk) 10:44, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that would work too. However I suggested the Lancaster article because it contains a little more context of the area. No strong feelings either way though. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:08, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anglo-Baloch wars

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This appears to be an inappropriate content fork of the First Anglo-Afghan War (and Siege of Kahun), the Second Anglo-Afghan War and Operations against the Marri and Khetran tribes for the three "wars" herein though there are also glaring inconsistencies such as a year of 1917 herein v 1918 for the operations and the one google scholar source for "Anglo-Baloch War of 1839" does not correspond with the date herein for the first war. I do not see anything of value to be merged with these other articles. Cinderella157 (talk) 07:02, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Pakistan, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:09, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ground News

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline, been in place since March 2024 UnikumMitsu-bishi (talk) 06:32, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Politics, Websites, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:43, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I say keep. While I agree the article could be improved, I think there are enough sources currently including news coverage and a PLOS ONE study that demonstrate some notability. Since it has significant coverage from independent sources, I don't see how deletion would be warranted under WP:GNG Urchincrawler (talk) 10:51, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Survivalism in fiction

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Survival fiction is a notable topic, but it is just a redirect here. What we have here is a very poorly referenced indiscriminate laundry list of works that violates MOS:TRIVA, WP:IPC and WP:LISTN. WP:ATD-R suggests that for now, we could just redirect this to Survivalism#In_popular_culture and wait for someone to create this one day. PS. Given we live in the age of AI-aided listicle churnalism, I expect we could find sources to save this - but given abysmal referencing, WP:TNT is another salad letter consideration to keep in mind. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:30, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Popular culture, and Lists. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:30, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kudamuck

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not appear notable. Searching for "Kudamuck" on Google returns literally zero reliable, independent sources. Also, the last sentence of the article arguably meets the "patent nonsense" criterion for speedy deletion ("There are many castes, religions, depart here"). Stephen Hui (talk) 06:15, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Stephen Hui (talk) 06:15, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:43, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chemxpert Database

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Apparent WP:PROMO violation. Article contains no third-party sourcing at all; external links provide some third-party interviews but nothing independent of the subject. On running the usual searches, I have not been able to locate anything that is even minimally suggestive of independent coverage in reliable sources, on which an encyclopedic article could be based. So I'm not sure this even meets WP:V, let alone WP:GNG, let alone WP:NCORP. (NB: there is also a "ChemXpert" software product that does not appear to be related to this company, which comes up in some Google Scholar searches.) Visviva (talk) 05:01, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Uttar Pradesh and Websites. Visviva (talk) 05:18, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:45, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Pretty obvious promotional/advertising article which is just a product a company puts out. Nothing encyclopedic about it. SmittenGalaxy | talk! 08:55, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All extrenal links are removed from article. Pharmadatabase (talk) 08:56, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless this website becomes notable or is expected to be notable in the near future, I don't see a reason to keeps it. It is far from meeting even the verifiability guideline. Sangsangaplaz (Talk to me! I'm willing to help) 09:05, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing independent found. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 11:07, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mauricio Sanchez

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Declined PROD; apparently, it was PRODded years before. Old article. Fails a WP:BEFORE search. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 02:58, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Venezuela. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 02:58, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Couldn't find any decent secondary sources with significant coverage at all to support WP:NACTOR. As an alternative to deletion, consider redirect to I Love New York (TV series) as this was pretty much his only role of any significance. SunloungerFrog (talk) 06:21, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Radius_Intelligence

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Radius Intelligence

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article lacks notability; there is not substantial media coverage (WP:SUBSTANTIAL), and the sources cited are niche and industry-specific, lacking sufficient audience (WP:AUDIENCE). The article appears to be self-promotion. Similar issues were raised with the now-deleted article about the company CEO. Tripofmice (talk) 04:31, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:39, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:49, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zack D Films

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable YouTuber. No reliable sources present, and all sources online are about one of his videos, not him in general, so no significant coverage. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 02:46, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and United States of America. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 02:46, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Tagged under WP:G11 as a promotional page. CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:50, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Declined; I don't see anything at all promotional here. If there's a speedy deletion criterion this comes close on, it's WP:A7, but having 17 million subscribers is probably a WP:CCS. None of which is to say he's notable, just that the article has earned its week at AfD. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 02:56, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:46, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't appear to be promotional but sourcing is clearly not good enough to meet WP:GNG. My guess is that this was created by some kid rather than a PR team. Esolo5002 (talk) 07:09, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No reliable sources to back up notability conpared to any other YouTuber. Urchincrawler (talk) 10:56, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shamayim "Mama Shu" Harris

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article fails general notability guidelines Nxcrypto Message 00:27, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:59, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:00, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as meets WP:GNG with multiple references in reliable sources with WP:SIGCOV, e.g. Detroit News, CNN, USA Today. I found more via a Google search not included in the article. Nnev66 (talk) 15:13, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: notability adequately supported.--Ipigott (talk) 10:47, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:32, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Any Means Possible

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG. Little significant coverage in reliable sources. C F A 01:45, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. This subject is not given significant, in-depth coverage by multiple unrelated reliable sources. JFHJr (㊟) 02:02, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, Games, Internet, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:47, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep assuming that Pinkvilla and Tubefilter are reliable sources (I'm not familiar with either), because references 4, 10, and 11 just barely seem to meet what I would consider SIGCOV...otherwise delete because I couldn't find anything better. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 12:42, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CaseOh (streamer)

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Still fails GNG. Little significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. C F A 01:37, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Internet. C F A 01:37, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nominator. The subject does not enjoy substantial, in-depth coverage by multiple reliable sources. JFHJr (㊟) 01:39, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the page history it at Draft:CaseOh1. This page was copy-and-paste moved without the AfC templates. win8x (talk) 01:40, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The creator did that because the main space name CaseOh is protected due to repeated recreation. Note the multiple page moves. JFHJr (㊟) 01:44, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can see that this article doesn't have enough reliable sources and CaseOh is not notable enough for an own article. PEPSI697 (💬 • 📝) 01:50, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no reliable sources. Might also need salting. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 02:27, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. The in-depth-sources like SVG and MSN (not MSN, of course) do not appear WP:BLP-good. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 04:29, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Arkansas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:48, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Functionality Equivalence Verification

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Stub was redirected to software testing years ago, but term is not described there or anywhere else on enwiki. Google suggests the term is related to equivalence checking, or it's possibly related to functional equivalence, but the use of this specific term is unclear. Deletion should be considered unless a proper redirect/merge target can be identified. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:23, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 02:06, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sýn (media corporation)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NORG. The first reference cites Sýn's website, the second one its own media outlet Vísir.is. All publications I found either contain trivial info or are news about acquisitions or sales of the company's assets. In brief, the company does not meet WP:ORGCRITE and is not inherently notable, according to the same guideline. Ur frnd (talk) 00:57, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Television, Companies, Internet, and Iceland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:12, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Pretty straightforward WP:NCORP fail. BD2412 T 02:01, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It would be surprising, and a rather serious indictment of our current NCORP practice, if Iceland's sole private TV news provider failed to clear the bar. Here is an informative book passage about the company. Here is a chapter providing substantial information on the company in the context of a general analysis of the Icelandic media system. (Both of the foregoing are in edited volumes published by the University of Gothenburg.) Competing outlets such as RÚV, MBL, and Viðskiptablaðið all have a considerable amount of reporting about the company, much of which seems quite substantial to me. (I will refrain, however, from attempting to anticipate whether the mere circumstance of actual independence from the article subject will be deemed sufficient for any of those articles to meet the circular requirements of WP:ORGIND.) -- Visviva (talk) 03:54, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Could be that subsidiaries are notable while the parent Sýn is not (WP:INHERITORG). But the sources you provided are indeed something, let's see what other editors have to say. Ur frnd (talk) 08:57, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sorry if this sounds harsh but if search for sources for Iceland's largest mass media company failed to actually find sources then there was something seriously wrong with that search and it should be redone. Alvaldi (talk) 07:05, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Fine, but I would rather see comments demostrating how the organization is notable than criticizing my nomination per se. Ur frnd (talk) 08:59, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Beck (EP)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

EP has zero coverage found in a WP:BEFORE. As for the citations present, 2 are database sites (no notability inherited from them), and the third is basically a press release announcing the release. Other language pages do not have any citations other than databases either.

I had previously redirected the page, but it was reverted. Reason give for the reversal was "This is a release by a major artist and therefore notable. Changing it to a redirect broke a bunch of links includlng the Beck chronology." We know that notability isn't inherited, so it doesn't matter how famous Beck is, if this release cannot stand on its own then it does not need to exist and can be mentioned in the Beck article. As for the reason that redirecting it "broke links", that is not a reason for keeping an article. Links can be fixed. DonaldD23 talk to me 22:49, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and United States of America. DonaldD23 talk to me 22:49, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Beck discography per WP:ATD.4meter4 (talk) 23:10, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:44, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Sufficient coverage in multiple reliable sources. See my additions today including brief but significant coverage in Radio & Records, New Straits Times, the Richmond Times-Dispatch, the Wisconsin State Journal and Under the Radar. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:29, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm perfectly fine with it being redirected to Beck discography, but it was redirected to Beck (musician) which was very confusing and felt like an error. And yes, broken links can be fixed, but it's not nice to just casually break obvious ones.

Ixat totep (talk) 17:53, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As it might not be obvious to all, I'm the one who un-redirected it, so if that makes this a disputed deletion, I'm happy to un-dispute it as long as it goes to Beck discography and not Beck (musician). [EDIT: But now someone added much better and more notable citations so I think it should be kept]

Ixat totep (talk) 17:56, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You could have just fixed the redirect to go to the discography and not the musician, just saying. DonaldD23 talk to me 00:44, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Donaldd23 I honestly thought there would be a lot more about it to cite. It's mentioned in a bunch of places like it's an important release (or at least as important as other EPs that aren't in danger of deletion). I was surprised I couldn't find more - that's why I left the "notability guidelines" flag up. If we're going to do "you could have..."... Albums are always in chronology carousels, and it's obvious that redirecting one will completely mess up the carousel and make them impossible to use to navigate the discography properly. That's the other reason I un-deleted it. I was clicking through releases and found myself back on the artist page trying to figure out wtf happened and it ticked me off enough to not fully research the page. I wanted the chronology to work and found zero talk page discussion about deletion so it seemed strange. Ixat totep (talk) 18:39, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Donaldd23 I just went to look at the page to see what to move elsewhere and volunteer to sort it out, but it looks like someone came along and added a bunch of much better citations, including print sources. So now I'd say keep it. Ixat totep (talk) 00:04, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the new sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:52, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dumper

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A dumper is exactly the same thing as a dump truck. It's a different article about the same subject in a different variant of English. Cyber the tiger (talk) 00:47, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering and Transportation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:13, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to dump truck. BD2412 T 02:02, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. The dump truck page already has a section for different types of dunp trucks, so I don't see why anything here wouldn't be better suited there. Urchincrawler (talk) 11:12, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a dumper and a dump truck are not the same thing. This is a misunderstanding. A dumper is smaller, has no cab and the skip is at the front. A dump truck is larger, has a driver's cab, and the skip is at the back. Harumphy (talk) 08:03, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment is that enough of a difference to warrant its own article rather than a section on the dump truck article? It seems like they both perform the same functions. Also, the article literally starts by saying dumper or dumptruck. It does not seem to be treating them separately.Urchincrawler (talk) 11:06, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]